| Literature DB >> 32652934 |
Shuang Xiao1, Liantao Liu1, Yongjiang Zhang1, Hongchun Sun1, Ke Zhang1, Zhiying Bai1, Hezhong Dong2, Yuchun Liu1, Cundong Li3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is one of the most important cash crops worldwide. Fine roots are the central part of the root system that contributes to plant water and nutrient uptake. However, the mechanisms underlying the response of cotton fine roots to soil drought remains unclear. To elucidate the proteomic changes in fine roots of cotton plants under drought stress, 70-75% and 40-45% soil relative water content treatments were imposed on control (CK) and drought stress (DS) groups, respectively. Then, tandem mass tags (TMT) technology was used to determine the proteome profiles of fine root tissue samples.Entities:
Keywords: Cotton; Drought stress; Fine roots; Proteome; TMT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32652934 PMCID: PMC7353779 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02531-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Effects of drought stress on the morphology of shoots and roots of cotton plants. Shoot morphology at 30 days after drought (DAD) (a). Root morphology at 30 DAD (c). Plant shoot morphology at 45 DAD (b). Root morphology at 45 DAD (d)
Fig. 2Changes in soil and plant analyzer development (SPAD) values (a) and leaf relative water content (LRWC) (b) of plants under drought stress. Each data point represents the mean of five independent biological replicates (mean ± SD). Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences compared with the control (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01)
Fig. 3Changes in superoxide dismutase (SOD) (a), peroxidase (POD) (b), and catalase (CAT) activities (c) of fine roots under normal irrigation (CK) and drought (DS) treatments at different time points. Each data point represents the mean of five independent biological replicates (mean ± SD). Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences compared with the control (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01)
Fig. 4Identification and statistical analysis of differentially expressed proteins (DEPs). a Numbers of up- and down-regulated DEPs among eight comparisons. b Venn diagram of the number of DEPs in the ‘DS30 vs CK30’ and ‘DS45 vs CK45’ comparisons. Red and green arrowheads represent up- and down-regulated DEPs, respectively
Fig. 5Gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of the up-regulated (a) and down-regulated (b) differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in the ‘DS45 vs CK45’ comparison
Fig. 6KEGG pathway enrichment-based clustering analysis of all identified proteins
Fig. 7Model showing the responses of the fine roots of cotton plants